Appeal No. 98-0409
Application 08/420,480
In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA
1969)). Moreover, skill is presumed on the part of those
practicing in the art. See In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743,
226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Therefore, the respective
advantages and disadvantages of well-known materials used in
the belt and holder art such as plastic, metal and leather
would have been apparent to the artisan (note In re Heinrich,
268 F.2d 753, 756, 122 USPQ 388, 390 (CCPA 1959)) and,
accordingly, we perceive that the selection of well-known
materials having properties which are well-known in the belt
and holder art (such as plastic) would have been obvious (see
In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 199, 125 USPQ 416, 418 (CCPA
1960).
It is also the appellants' contention that claim 1
requires that "each receiver of Appellants' invention is
removable and replaceable" (brief, page 7). This is not the
case. Independent claim 1 more broadly recites that "the
cartridge receiver may be slidably engaged with the rack
portion and is removable and replaceable therefrom." This
being the case, this limitation does not define over the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007